Winning isn’t everything, but …

How much should winning matter when the college program in question does not generate revenue and is not followed by many? Should anyone care so long as the student-athletes represent the institution properly? That is the heart of Sunday’s column, centered on the other ice hockey team at Union College.

**

The career record speaks for itself: It is the worst all time in the college sport among those who have coached as many games.

It’s a record you’d think would get almost anyone fired. But instead it got the coach a contract extension.

We are talking about Union College hockey.

No, not the men’s team, the nationally ranked program that made its first Division I NCAA Tournament appearance last March.

This is about the other Union ice hockey team, the women’s team, the team you don’t see on the TV highlights or read about in the newspaper or on blogs.

And that in large part is why the coach has been able to survive in her job.

In her four years in Schenectady, Union women’s hockey coach Claudia Barcomb (formerly Asano) has amassed a record of 12-113-9, for a winning percentage of .123.

According to USCHO.com, a site that tracks American college hockey, that is the worst winning percentage all time among women’s college hockey head coaches with more than 56 games — and worst among all college hockey coaches with more than 109 games’ experience. And it gets worse:

Eight of those wins came against the same team, Sacred Heart. In her four last-place ECAC Hockey seasons, Union has a record of 2-80-6 (.057). Both wins came against Brown.

But instead of getting fired, Barcomb got a four-year contract extension in 2010. That came after what proved to be the best season of her first four: 5-28-1.

“There are a lot of criteria we measure with the program. It’s not just wins or loses,” athletic director Jim McLaughlin said. “One of the things I measure is progress. I’ve been very happy with the progress.”

Still, winning clearly doesn’t matter when it comes to assessing the fate of this coach, this program, at least so far. The question fair-minded people can asked is how much it should, considering few follow the team.

And to be fair, Union women’s hockey was a mess coming in: In fact, it’s been a doormat since its inception in 1998 and its ascension to Division I in 2003-04. Yes, the previous coach, Tim Gerrish (2004 to 2007), had a better winning percentage — at all of .143. That’s not exactly setting a high standard.

And there are a lot of programs with long-time coaches with sub-.500 records. The pool of quality D-I women’s hockey players is not as deep as the men’s side, where colleges can not only draw from high schools and juniors but even Europe. Finally, it’s not like men’s coach Nate Leaman turned Union into a men’s power overnight before leaving for Providence, or Seth Appert immediately righted the men’s program at RPI. It takes time in hockey, especially when you don’t offer athletic scholarships.

That said … 12-113-9 is just epic. So is zero wins in four seasons against teams not named Sacred Heart, Brown, Maine and (shockingly) North Dakota. That gets you re-upped at the Division I level?

“We’ve been progressing with getting great players in the program,” McLaughlin said. “I’m confident the wins will come.”

Union is a school with a split athletic department: Division I in hockey, Division III in other sports. There are 13 such schools with D-I/D-III splits, including RPI. Resources are allocated differently, and expectations can be adjusted accordingly. (That said, the sport traditionally with the second-highest profile at Union is the D-III football team.) McLaughlin said he judges all his programs along the same criteria — but then dubiously declined to concede the obvious double standard:

If all things were equal, a men’s hockey or football coach with the same winning percentage as Barcomb’s undoubtedly would have been bounced, not re-upped. Regardless of how well his charges did in the classroom or the community, there just would have been too much pressure not to make a change — and justifiably so.

This double standard exists elsewhere at other schools: If a program is high profile, wins and losses take on heightened prominence. That’s just a fact. The scale slides for sports out of the spotlight. It’s not always a men’s/women’s divide (see: UConn women’s basketball), but it often breaks down that way. Regardless of gender, you can abide by a losing coach if the out-of-sight program doesn’t cause headaches.

Barcomb talked at length about her team’s grade-point average (3.3), and the number of players who go on to post-graduate studies, and their volunteerism. “Our kids do some of the most community service of all the kids in the school,” she said. She added the program has improved, with better recruits coming in and the right staff being in place. The coach, whose media guide bio doesn’t list her career stats, said better results will be seen on the ice in the next several seasons ahead. It does take time; maybe Barcomb and her staff can make this program a winner. Eventually.

But then she got to the heart of the question with a question.

“Is everything about winning,” Barcomb said, “or is about being great kids and being a great team?”

At the Division I level, it should be about a combination of both. Eventually — certainly within the remainder of this four-year contract — the coach has to produce a winner. Not necessarily an NCAA Tournament team mind you, but at least one with a winning percentage that doesn’t resemble a pitcher’s batting average. Wins and losses do have importance in college sports, at least to a point, and certainly at the D-I level.

There’s great validity when Barcomb says there’s more to college athletics than filling trophy cases and the stands, especially when talking about sports not in the spotlight. But as Herman Edwards said, you play to win the game. That is part of the college sports experience.

Along with all the other good that athletics can provide, wins and loses do matter. Records not only speak for themselves. They say something about a school.

“Eventually …the coach has to produce a winner. Not necessarily an NCAA Tournament team mind you, but at least one with a winning percentage that doesn’t resemble a pitcher’s batting average. Wins and losses do have importance in college sports, at least to a point, and certainly at the D-I level.”

Now that you stated the above Mark, why don’t you do an as “in depth” story on the OTHER hockey program in the area, THE SIENA SAINTS FIELD HOCKEY PROGRAM.

Siena’s field Hockey program over the last 10 years has a 24 – 143 (0.144) record and with Siena’s current coach, Mr. Bill Davidson, at the helm over the past 5 years …has a 9 – 60 (0.130) record! Those statistics I just mentioned are basically as EPIC as the ones that amazed you!

We all know that “Records not only speak for themselves. They say something about a school.”, right Mark?

Going back to the original question, what is the balance? When should winning taking precedence for a program that is not big in the eyes of of the alumni/booster/general/population? I don’t want to get hung up on the individual teams or coaches as much as address the issue as a whole.

I understand the basis of for your column, Mark, but I do have a bit of a different perspective on this.

Union is stuck in a tough situation regarding this program. They have the curse of being like any Ivy school in regards to not being allowed to give athletic scholarships (which severely curtails their pursuit of higher end recruits), but yet they don’t have the reputation of an Ivy like Harvard, who DID have success in D1 womens hockey before the sport grew to what it is now, and has been able to keep attracting high level recruits with its name alone.

Union’s only selling point is an education at a quality institution, but unfortunately that’s not enough to pull in most upper level recruits, especially when the only financial assistance they can offer is “need based”. We experienced this first hand when Union was one of the schools recruiting our daughter. We like the school, but when it came down to it, we qualified for very little financial aid as a middle class family. Ultimately, our daughter chose a school where she got a partial athletic scholarship, as that was the only way we could afford it. I’m sure many other families end up in the same situation when considering Union for their daughter.

@DC: Thanks for writing. It is REALLY hard to win considering what Union women are up against. While I wrote the column because of the record, I would hope people take a look at the broader issue: How much should wins and losses factor into the equation at such a program.

Mark: After reading the first two lines, thought you were talking about the RPI mens hockey team.
I’ll probably ruffle some panties but usually only friends and family go watch them games anyway. Sorta like watching grass grow, and I’m not talking the 7 foot kind.
They should be allowed to play, have fun and get an education. Other then that don’t worry about the wins and losses, nobody else cares. Although winning is more fun.
There are many beer leagues that the guys that don’t play college have fun doing, maybe they can start a beer league for the girls.

FF: This is not just a men’s/women’s divide: The same could be asked about guys sports out of the limelight. A conjured example: Do you think Michigan’s alumni as a whole are going crazy if the men’s golf team has three straight losing seasons? (Please don’t make me look up their record.)

From column: “If a program is high profile, wins and losses take on heightened prominence. That’s just a fact. The scale slides for sports out of the spotlight. It’s not always a men’s/women’s divide (see: UConn women’s basketball), but it often breaks down that way. Regardless of gender, you can abide by a losing coach if the out-of-sight program doesn’t cause headaches.”

The elephant in the room is, of course, Title IX. Winning doesn’t matter for this women’s program because its existence allows a men’s program in a different sport to exist. You can call that opinion sexist if you want, and you can claim that this isn’t the intent of Title IX, but we all know that, in practice, this is exactly how it tends to turn out.

(And yes, I know DevilsFan pointed that out already, but I felt it was worth mentioning again.)

It sounds like the women’s hockey program doesn’t belong in Division I. But do the rules allow for split divisions within the same sport? Or would keeping the men’s team in D-I while dropping the women’s team down to D-III be a violation of Title IX or some NCAA regulation?